DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 8/6/2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendments entered on 8/6/2025 have been accepted. Claims 28 and 55 are amended. Claims 50-51 are canceled. Claims 28-49 and 52-55 are pending. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome the 112(b) rejections previously set forth in the final office action mailed 3/14/2025.
Claim Objections
Claims 28, 31-32, 47 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 28 2nd page line 13 should read “…form an angle relative to the equatorial plane greater than an angle formed by the second transverse grooves”, because this angle of the second transverse grooves was not previously introduced.
Claim 28 2nd page line 16 should read “…the first transverse grooves form the angle between 60 and 90”, because this angle was previously introduced 3 lines prior
Claim 28 2nd page line 18 should read “…the second transverse grooves form the angle between 45 and 70”, because this angle was previously introduced 5 lines prior
Claim 31 should read “…wherein the second transverse grooves of the first circumferential rib form the angle between 50 to 70”, because the angle of the second transverse grooves was introduced in claim 28 of which this claim depends
Claim 32 should read “…wherein the second transverse grooves are inclined relative to a direction parallel to the equatorial plane (X-X) to form the angle greater than 60”, because the angle of the second transverse grooves was introduced in claim 28 of which this claim depends.
Claim 47 should read “…have a maximum width greater than a maximum width of the first transverse grooves of the inner shoulder region”, to be consistent with how these grooves were previously introduced.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 28-32, 35-38, 48-49, 52 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bode (US20180250989A1, of record) in view of Oba (US2017/0267031A1, of record), in view of Imakita (US2011/0088821A1, of record), and in view of Tomida (US2018/0111422, of record).
Regarding claim 28, Bode teaches a tire (see Figs. 1-2, for example which disclose the tire. Bode does not explicitly disclose the tire is a car tire. However, the tire is directed towards a tread rib pattern suitable for improving noise performance, braking/steering stability, and other performance characteristics. Therefore, as Bode does not restrict its inventive tread to a specific tire type, one would appreciate such a tread being suitable for use to improve noise/steering stability to include car tires. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the tire of Bode for use with a car tire).
having a tread band (tread “100”) comprising a central region extending across an equatorial plane of the tire, an outer shoulder region on an outer side and an inner shoulder region on an inner side (as in Figs. 1-6, the outer side of the tire when mounted is considered the right of the pattern and the inner side of the tire when mounted is considered the left of the pattern, wherein Bode specifies that the groove “130” which is located on the right side of the tread is an outside groove on an outside area of the tread [0033-0035]. The central region is considered the 2 central most land portions “501” and “502”, while “402” is the outer shoulder region and “401” is the inner shoulder region),
A first circumferential groove axially delimiting the outer shoulder region relative to the central region (circumferential groove “130” separates the outer shoulder region “402” and the central region) and a second circumferential groove axially delimiting the inner shoulder region relative to the central region (circumferential groove “110” separates the inner shoulder region “401” and the central region),
The outer shoulder region having a width greater than the width of the inner shoulder region (as in Figs. 1-6, the outer shoulder region “402” clearly is wider compared to that of an inside shoulder region “401”).
Bode does not explicitly disclose the widths of its central region or outer/inner shoulder regions compared to a width of the tread band. As such, it would have been obvious for one to look to other tires within the art for an ideal tread pattern with land portion widths. Oba, for example, is tied to a passenger car tire [0017] which has 4 land portions and 3 main circumferential grooves [Fig. 1]. Each of the center land portions have annular portions with no grooves present, and the shoulder land portions have portions where there are annular locations where the void-to-rubber ratio is substantially zero (i.e., where only thin sipes are present that do not have a major impact on water drainage). Oba is clearly of similar endeavor and design as Bode and the instant application. Oba discloses that the width of the shoulder land portions are arranged from 0.25 to 0.35 times the tread ground contact width, and the width of each of the middle land portions is from 0.10 to 0.20 times TW [0029]. The shoulder land portions are made to be 1.6 to 2.4 times that of the center land portions [0028]. The tread pattern of Oba is shown to be symmetrical but it is explicitly not limited to this [0027].
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to modify the land regions of Bode to be within the suggested widths of Oba. One would have been motivated in order to have higher rigidity in the shoulder land portions improving wear resistance [0028-0029, 0093], which is a concern of Bode [0037]. In making such a modification, the central region may have center land portions that each have a width of as low as .10, such that the overall central region would reasonably be less than 35% of the TW when the center land portions are at the bottom portion of their range. And given that the shoulder land portions may have a range of values from .25 to .35 times TW, they would similarly have a width (either separately or together, as the claim is broad as to this aspect) that overlaps with a width greater than or equal to 30% of an effective width of the tread band. As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)).
Bode has transverse grooves “601” that are present in each of the shoulder land portions, as in Fig. 1. These grooves may have one end at a tread edge and extend towards a tire equator [see Figs. 3-6, which show the edges of the tread band wherein at least some of the grooves have an end adjacent to the tread edge. Additionally, it is noted that the “end” of the groove “601” may readily be considered to end at the tread edge as it is not explicitly required that there are no grooves present in a buttress portion of the tire]. The grooves “601” may stretch over 50% of the width of the shoulder region in which they are located [see Figs. 1-6, wherein the grooves in the shoulder region clearly extend over 50% of the respective land portions]. Bode does not explicitly define the width of its grooves “601”, but Bode does differentiate between the grooves “601” the sipes “602”, wherein it is well known in the art that grooves have a wider width compared to that of sipes which have a very narrow width. As Bode does not give a specific value of its groove width, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to look for conventional groove widths to apply to the tire of Bode to obtain a working tire with a reasonable chance of success. Imakita, for example, teaches a passenger car tire with a tread pattern with transverse grooves “4” and longitudinal grooves “3” [0044]. Conventionally, the grooves of passenger car tires for transverse grooves and longitudinal grooves may range from 3 to 20mm, and the depths of transverse grooves and longitudinal grooves may range from 1.5mm to 8mm [0044-0045].
Because Bode is silent as to the dimensions of its groove portions, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to look to other exemplary tires within the art for conventional passenger car groove sizes with a reasonable expectation of success. One would have utilized the groove sizes of Imakita in order to obtain sufficient rigidity, drainage, steering stability, etc. In making this modification, the groove widths of the grooves “601” of Bode would significantly overlap above 4mm, thus suggesting the claimed width. As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
The central region comprising a first (rib “502”) and a second circumferential rib (“501”) separated by a third circumferential groove (“120”), the first and second circumferential ribs comprising a plurality of second transverse grooves (sipes “602” which are present on both of these ribs, see Figs. 1-2), wherein
The outer shoulder region comprises a shoulder annular portion have a void-to-rubber ratio substantially equal to zero, located adjacent to the first circumferential groove (the land portion “402” has a large annular portion adjacent to the circumferential groove “130” which clearly has no grooves present [see Figs. 1-6] wherein the void-to-rubber ratio would be 0),
The first circumferential rib has a first annular portion having a void-to-rubber ratio substantially equal to zero located adjacent to the first circumferential groove (“502” as in Figs. 1-2 has a sipe “602” and has an annular portion with no grooves present which is adjacent to the first circ groove “130”, such that this annular portion would clearly have a void-to-rubber ratio of 0 given that no grooves are present),
The second circumferential rib has a second annular portion having a void-to-rubber ratio substantially equal to zero (as in Figs. 1-2, the second rib “501” have sipe ‘602” and an annular portion where no grooves are present adjacent to the third circumferential groove “120”, such that this annular portion would clearly have a void-to-rubber ratio of 0 given that no grooves are present).
Bode does not explicitly define a range of angles for its second transverse grooves 45-70deg with respect to the equatorial plane. Tomida is an analogous art (tied to passenger vehicle tires [0127, 0130]. The tread is divided with 3 circumferential grooves into 4 ribs (similar to the instant application and Bode). The center ribs are provided with narrow grooves “31” which do not extend fully across the groove [0059, Fig. 1]. The grooves have an angle α with the circumferential direction from 50 to 85deg or preferably 60 to 80deg [0058]. As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the sipes of Bode to have an angle as suggested by Tomida. One would have found it obvious so as to maintain the rigidity of the of the central region at a high level, and to improve the braking performance when wet [0058].
From Figs. 1-6 of Bode, the first transverse grooves of the shoulder regions clearly have an angle between 60 and 90deg, as they both extend substantially horizontal at a measurement of ~80deg to the tire equatorial plane which is the vertical direction in each of those figures. It being noted that: when the reference is a utility patent, it does not matter that the feature shown is unintended or unexplained in the specification. The drawings must be evaluated for what they reasonably disclose and suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Aslanian, 590 F.2d 911, 200 USPQ 500 (CCPA 1979), see MPEP 2125. In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably considered the shoulder first transverse grooves to have an angle of approximately 80deg to the equatorial plane based upon the drawings.
Given these angle relationships, the angles of the first transverse grooves (approximately 80deg) would clearly be greater than those of the second transverse grooves (angle of preferably 60 to 80deg), such as when the second transverse grooves have an angle of 60deg. As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Modified Bode further makes obvious the first/second grooves have a straight course (The examiner notes that this limitation will be interpreted broadly as no guidance is given regarding specific measures delineating a straight course from any other pathway. In this case, the first and second transverse grooves (as seen in Figs. 1-6 for example) would be considered to extend in a straight course as they are without any bent portion and are reasonably extending in a straight manner with no substantial change in direction of extent. It being emphasized that the instant application Fig. 1 appears to show a slight amount of curve included in the definition of “straight course” in its first transverse grooves, such that the grooves of Bode would further reasonably read upon the limitation).
Regarding claim 29, modified Bode makes obvious a tire wherein the second annular portion is located adjacent to the third circumferential groove (as in Figs. 1-2, the annular portion of the rib “501” is located adjacent to “120” which is considered the third circ groove).
Regarding claim 30, modified Bode makes obvious a tire wherein the second transverse grooves have an extension equal to at least 30% of a width of the circumferential rib in which they are located (as in Figs. 1-2, the sipes “602” in ribs “501” and “502” are clearly much longer than 30% of their respective widths of their ribs they are located. An annotated Fig. 1 is included below to further show this. The length of the sipe of the first rib “502” is about 40% of the total width of the rib, and the length of the longer sipe of the second rib in “501” is about 66% of the total width of the rib. As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use the scale of the drawings as a starting point in their design process, specifically in choosing a length of the sipe value as described above. While patent drawings are not to scale, relationships clearly shown in the drawings of a reference patent cannot be disregarded in determining the patentability of claims. See In re Mraz, 173 USPQ 25 (CCPA 1972). Based on Fig. 1 of Bode, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found that a length value as described above is about 40% and 66% for the first and second center ribs, thus suggesting the claimed limitation.
PNG
media_image1.png
387
522
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 31-32, modified Bode makes obvious a tire where the second transverse grooves of the first circ rib range from 50-70 and an angle of the second circ rib greater than 60deg (As applied in claim 28 above, the sipes of Bode are modified by Tomida so they have an angle from 50 to 85deg or preferably 60 to 80deg [0058]. As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)).
Regarding claim 35, modified Bode makes obvious a tire wherein the first annular portion has a width greater than 30% of the width of the first circumferential rib (as in the rejection of claim 30 above, the length of the sipe in the first rib is about 40% of the width of the rib [see claim 30 above]. The annular portion makes up the rest of the axial portion of the first rib, and thus is about 60% of the rib and well above the claimed range. As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use the scale of the drawings as a starting point in their design process, specifically in choosing a length of the annular portion as described above. While patent drawings are not to scale, relationships clearly shown in the drawings of a reference patent cannot be disregarded in determining the patentability of claims. See In re Mraz, 173 USPQ 25 (CCPA 1972). Based on Fig. 1 of Bode, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found that a length value as described above is about 60% of the first rib, thus suggesting the claimed range.
Regarding claim 36, modified Bode makes obvious a tire wherein the second transverse grooves of the second circumferential rib have an extension greater than the extension of the second transverse grooves of the first circumferential rib (as in Figs. 1-2, the sipe “602” in the second rib “501” is clearly longer than the sipe “602” present in the rib “502”).
Regarding claim 37, modified Bode makes obvious a tire wherein the second annular portion has a width greater than or equal to 25% of the second circumferential rib (as in the rejection of claim 30 above, the length of the sipe in the second rib “501” is about 66% of the width of the respective rib [see claim 30 above]. The annular portion makes up the rest of the axial portion of the second rib, and thus is about 34% of the rib and well above the claimed range. As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use the scale of the drawings as a starting point in their design process, specifically in choosing a length of the annular portion as described above. While patent drawings are not to scale, relationships clearly shown in the drawings of a reference patent cannot be disregarded in determining the patentability of claims. See In re Mraz, 173 USPQ 25 (CCPA 1972). Based on Fig. 1 of Bode, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found that a length value as described above is about 34% of the second rib, thus suggesting the claimed range.
Regarding claim 38, modified Bode makes obvious a tire wherein the first annular portion has a width greater than the width of the second annular portion (as in Figs. 1-2, the length of the sipe “602” in the first rib “502” is shorter than that of the sipe “602” in the second rib “501”. Therefore, the annular portion of the first rib must be greater than the annular portion of the second rib.)
Regarding claim 48, modified Bode makes obvious a tire wherein the first transverse grooves have a max depth smaller than 4mm (as in the rejection of claim 28 above, it would be obvious to situate the transverse grooves to have a conventional groove depth from 1.5 to 8mm as suggested by Imakita [0044-0045]. As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)).
Regarding claim 49, modified Bode makes obvious a tire wherein the first transverse grooves do not have intersection points with the first/second circumferential grooves (as in Figs. 1-6, the transverse grooves “601” clearly do not intersect any circumferential grooves).
Regarding claim 52, modified Bode makes obvious a tire wherein the first circumferential groove has a width smaller than 5mm (as in the rejection of claim 28 above, the conventional groove widths of circumferential grooves may range from 3-20mm as suggested by Imakita for passenger car tires [0044-0045]. As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)).
Claims 42-43 and 54 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bode (US20180250989A1, of record) in view of Oba (US2017/0267031A1, of record), in view of Imakita (US2011/0088821A1, of record), and in view of Tomida (US2018/0111422, of record), as applied to claim 28 above, and further in view of Matsumura (US2005/0150582A1, of record).
Regarding claims 42-43, Bode is clear that the second transverse grooves in the central ribs “501” and “502” are sipes “602” [Figs. 1-2, 0031], which are well known in the art to have a thinner width compared to widths of “grooves”, as they are intended to close when the tire is in the contact patch. Bode does not give a specific width/depth of its sipes. As such, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to look for conventional sipe widths/depths to apply to the tire of Bode to obtain a working tire with a reasonable expectation of success. Matsumura, for example, teaches a tire with sipes “4”, “6”, and “9” which each may have widths of about 0.4mm to about 2mm, and a depth from 3mm to 15mm [0077].
One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to look to other exemplary tires within the art for conventional sipe width/sizes, and one would have utilized the sipe sizes of Matsumura in order to improve the traction and rigidity of the tire as conventional for sipes with a reasonable expectation of success. In making this modification, the sipes “602” of Bode would have a width from 0.4mm to 2mm and a depth from 3mm to 15mm, overlapping with the claimed ranges of a width smaller than 2mm and a depth smaller than 4mm. As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 54, modified Bode makes obvious a tire wherein the first transverse grooves have a depth greater than the depth of the second transverse grooves (as in the rejections of claims 28 and 42-43 above, the second transverse grooves may have a depth from 3-15mm as suggested by Matsumura and the first transverse grooves may have a depth from 1.5 to 8mm as suggested by Imakita. Within these ranges, there are numerous embodiments where the claimed limitation is made obvious. For example, when the first transverse groove has a depth of 8mm and the second transverse groove has a depth of 6mm. As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Claims 33-34 and 40-41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bode (US20180250989A1, of record) in view of Oba (US2017/0267031A1, of record), in view of Imakita (US2011/0088821A1, of record), and in view of Tomida (US2018/0111422, of record), as applied to claim 28 above, and further in view of Matsumura (US2005/0150582A1, of record), in view of Iwasaki (US2016/0193886A1, of record), and in view of either Kleinhoff (EP0541004A1, of record) or Tomida (US2018/0111422, of record).
Regarding claims 33-34, Bode is clear that the second transverse grooves in the central ribs “501” and “502” are sipes “602” [Figs. 1-2, 0031], which are well known in the art to have a thinner width compared to widths of “grooves”, as they are intended to close when the tire is in the contact patch. Bode does not give a specific width/depth of its sipes. As such, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to look for conventional sipe widths/depths to apply to the tire of Bode to obtain a working tire with a reasonable expectation of success. Matsumura, for example, teaches a tire with sipes “4”, “6”, and “9” which each may have widths of about 0.4mm to about 2mm, and a depth from 3mm to 15mm [0077]. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to look to other exemplary tires within the art for conventional sipe width/sizes, and one would have utilized the sipe sizes of Matsumura in order to improve the traction and rigidity of the tire as conventional for sipes with a reasonable expectation of success.
Bode does not directly disclose a size of its tire. It is well known in the art that a tire can have different tire sizes depending on the type of vehicle that the tire is to be mounted to. As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the tire of Bode to be any passenger tire size. Case law holds that the selection of a known material based on suitability for its intended use support prima facie obviousness. Sinclair & Carroll Co vs. Interchemical Corp., 325 US 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1045)". See MPEP 2144.07. One example of a possible passenger car tire size is suggested by Iwasaki, which suggests a tire size of 245/50R20 [0098, 0100]. It being noted that the instant application also preferably has a section width of at least 245mm and an aspect ratio most preferably 50% or smaller [pg. 3 of instant specification]. Such a tire size (based upon the given section width, section height, rim diameter) would have a calculated tire diameter of 752mm and a tire circumference of 2365mm.
Bode does not directly disclose a distance between sipes or a pitch of the repeated tread portion so as to calculate a void-to-rubber ratio of the circumferential rib. Kleinhoff teaches that for conventional car tires, the total number of steps n in the sequence of the tread ranges from 50-80 [0015-0016]. In other words, the “pitch” of conventional car tires ranges from 50-80. As Bode is silent as to a specific pitch of its tread, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the conventional pitch for car tires as suggested by Kleinhoff, with a reasonable expectation of success and the conventional benefits of adequately pitched treads including proper rigidity and drainage. Alternatively, Tomida teaches a tire for cars which has central ribs with only a sipe (see Fig. 1), where the circumferential distance “P” between sipes is 0.5 to 4.5% of the circumferential length of the tire [0059]. One of ordinary skill in the art would have utilized the suggested sipe distance in order to improve both braking performance and steering stability [0059].
Based upon the sipe density/pitch, the circumference of the tire, and the sipe width, a void-to-rubber ratio of the first circumferential rib of modified Bode may be reasonable calculated, and will be shown to be substantially below to given range of smaller than 0.01. As above, the width of the sipes “602” range from 0.4mm to 2mm (using 0.4mm for the calculation herein). Based off of the first circumferential rib “502” of Bode, the sipe extends ~50% of the width of the rib and is the only type of groove/sipe present in this circumferential rib. The conventional tire pitch may range from 50-80 as suggested by Kleinhoff, and a pitch of 65 is used for the calculation (wherein 1 “pitch” of the tread pattern clearly repeats along each occurrence of the sipe “602” in the rib “502”, see Bode Figs. 1-2). Alternatively using Tomida, the sipe density may be from 0.5 to 4.5% of the overall circumferential length (using a medium value of 2.5% herein). The circumference of the car tire would be 2365mm as suggested by the tire size of Iwasaki. Based off of this (first utilizing the pitch of Kleinhoff) the total width of the sipes over the circumference of the tire would be 26mm (65 pitch times 0.4mm width). With a circumference of 2365mm and the sipes only being ~50% of the width of the rib, the void-to-rubber ratio of the first circumferential rib would be approximately 0.0055 (26mm/2/2365) when using the pitch as suggested by Kleinhoff. When using the sipe density suggested by Tomida instead (with a sipe at 2.5% spacing of the overall circumferential length of the tread), there would be a total sipe width of 16mm (2.5% of overall length equates to 40 total sipes, times 0.4mm width). With a circumference of 2365mm and the sipes only being ~50% of the width of the rib, the void-to-rubber ratio of the first circumferential rib would be approximately 0.0034 (16mm/2/2365) when using the pitch as suggested by Tomida. In either case, the approximate void-to-rubber ratio would thus clearly be well less than the claimed value of 0.01. As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claims 40-41, reference is made to claims 33-34 above and the modifications of sipe width via Matsumura, overall pitch of Kleinhoff/Tomida, and the tire size/circumference of Iwasaki. Based upon the pitch of the tread, the circumference of the tire, and the sipe width, a void-to-rubber ratio of the second circumferential rib of modified Bode may be reasonable calculated, and will be shown to be substantially below to given range of smaller than 0.02. As above, the width of the sipes “602” range from 0.4mm to 2mm (using 0.4mm for the calculation herein). Based off of the second circumferential rib “502” of Bode, the two sipes extend an average of 50% of the width of the rib and only sipes are present in this circumferential rib. The conventional tire pitch may range from 50-80 as suggested by Kleinhoff, and a pitch of 65 is used for the calculation. Wherein 1 “pitch” of the tread pattern clearly repeats along the circumference of the tire such that there is one longer sipe and one shorter sipe present per pitch. The circumference of the car tire would be 2365mm as suggested by the tire size of Iwasaki. Based off of this, the total width of the sipes over the circumference of the tire would be 52mm (65 pitch times 0.4mm width * 2sipes per pitch). With a circumference of 2365mm and the sipes only being on average ~50% of the width of the rib, the void-to-rubber ratio of the second circumferential rib would be approximately 0.011 (52mm/2/2365), using the pitch suggested by Kleinhoff. When using the sipe density suggested by Tomida from 0.5% to 4.5% (using the middle point of 2.5% herein), there would be a total sipe width of 16mm (2.5% of overall length equates to 40 total sipes, times 0.4mm width). With a circumference of 2365mm and the sipes only being ~50% of the width of the rib, the void-to-rubber ratio of the first circumferential rib would be approximately 0.0034 (16mm/2/2365) when using the pitch as suggested by Tomida. In either case, the approximate void-to-rubber ratio would thus clearly be less than the claimed value of 0.02. As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Claims 39 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bode (US20180250989A1, of record) in view of Oba (US2017/0267031A1, of record), in view of Imakita (US2011/0088821A1, of record), and in view of Tomida (US2018/0111422, of record), as applied to claim 28 above, and further in view of Kamigori (US2019/0061430A1, of record).
Regarding claim 39, Bode doesn’t explicitly disclose the first annular portion having a width greater than the width of the shoulder annular portion. Kamigori discloses a tire with 4 land portions of a substantially similar design to Bode [see Fig. 2], which is divided into two shoulder regions and two central rib regions. The outer shoulder region is shown in Fig. 7, and the width of the shoulder annular region is “W9”. The width of this shoulder annular portion is preferably 0.20 to 0.30 times the width of the outer shoulder land region [0225].
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to modify the outer shoulder portion of Bode to have an annular width as suggested by Kamigori. One would have been motivated in order to increase the rigidity so as to help obtain a large cornering power [0225]. Given this width of annular portion widths and a suggested width of the entire shoulder portion from .25 to .35 times TW as in the rejection of claim 28 above, the suggested width of the annular portion would range from .05TW to 0.105TW. Given that the width of the central ribs may range from .10 to .20 times TW and that the first annular portion is clearly over 50% of the width of the first rib [see Figs. 1-2], it is clear that the first annular portion would have a width that is greater than the shoulder annular portion and overlaps with the claimed range. As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Claims 44-45 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bode (US20180250989A1, of record) in view of Oba (US2017/0267031A1, of record), in view of Imakita (US2011/0088821A1, of record), and in view of Tomida (US2018/0111422, of record), as applied to claim 28 above, and further in view of Bolzoni (US2016/0193880A1, of record).
Regarding claims 44-45, Bode does not explicitly disclose the number of first transverse grooves on the inner shoulder region being about twice that the of the number of first transverse grooves of the outer shoulder region. Bolzoni is tied to a car tire for high or ultra-high performance [0001]. It is noted that Bolzoni shares assignee, inventors, and inventive concepts/goals with the instant application. Fig. 7 in particular shows a tread pattern with annular portions which are absent of any grooves. The tread is divided into a first shoulder portion L2 on a outer side of the tire and a second shoulder portion L3 on the inner side of the tire [0072, Fig. 4, 7]. There are first transverse grooves “56” of the outer shoulder portion and first transverse grooves “66” of the second shoulder portion on the inside. The number of first transverse grooves “66” on the inside is about twice the number of first transverse grooves “56” on the outer shoulder portion [0088].
One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the shoulder grooves of Bode to have roughly twice as many on the inner side compared to the outer side as in Bolzoni. One would have been motivated in order to improve braking and driving on wet and dry surfaces, and to improve noise and rolling resistance [Table 1, 0022, 0118].
Claim 46 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bode (US20180250989A1, of record) in view of Oba (US2017/0267031A1, of record), in view of Imakita (US2011/0088821A1, of record), and in view of Tomida (US2018/0111422, of record), as applied to claim 28 above, and further in view of Osawa (JP2017128269A, of record).
Regarding claim 46, Bode does not specifically disclose the width increasing moving away from the equatorial plane of the tire. Osawa is tied to a pneumatic tire with shoulder lateral land portions which are grooves that extend from a tread edge axially inwards towards a tire equator [see Fig. 1]. The shoulder lug grooves “12” have an inclined portion which desirably has the groove width gradually decreasing towards the inner end 12i which is located on a tire equator side [pg. 4 of machine translation]. As in Fig. 1, this clearly results in the shoulder groove having an increase in width moving away from a tire equator.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to modify the shoulder lateral grooves of Bode to have a decreasing groove width portion on the axial inside as suggested by Osawa. One would have been motivated so as to increase rigidity in this region so as to improve steering stability performance [pg. 4 of machine translation].
Claim 47 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bode (US20180250989A1, of record) in view of Oba (US2017/0267031A1, of record), in view of Imakita (US2011/0088821A1, of record), and in view of Tomida (US2018/0111422, of record), as applied to claim 28 above, and further in view of Inoue (JP2013078984A, of record).
Regarding claim 47, Bode does not explicitly disclose the transverse groove of the outer shoulder region having a width greater than the width of the inner shoulder region transverse grooves. Inoue discloses a tire with 4 land portions which may be used for passenger car tires [pg. 2 of machine translation]. The outer shoulder has lateral groove “10” which has a groove width “W4”, and the inside shoulder lateral groove “11” has a groove width “W5” [pg. 4 of machine translation]. The width W4 of the outer region is made larger than the width W5 of the inner region [pg. 4 of machine translation].
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to modify the shoulder lateral grooves of Bode to have the outer shoulder transverse groove larger than the inside shoulder transverse grooves, as suggested by Inoue. One would have been motivated in order to improve the noise performance and drainage performance in a well-balanced manner [pg. 4 of machine translation].
Claim 53 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bode (US20180250989A1, of record) in view of Oba (US2017/0267031A1, of record), in view of Imakita (US2011/0088821A1, of record), and in view of Tomida (US2018/0111422, of record), as applied to claim 28 above, and further in view of Onitsuka (US2018/0264887A1, of record).
Regarding claim 53, Bode does not explicitly show the circumferential grooves having an increasing width moving away from the outer shoulder region. However, it is well known in the art to situate circumferential grooves as such. Onitsuka, for example, teaches a tread pattern for a pneumatic tire for passenger cars [0030]. The tread pattern has three circumferential grooves and a designated inner “Ti” and outer “To” side [Fig. 1]. The circumferential groove widths “of each of the main grooves 3 to 5 is set so as to increase toward the inner tread edge Ti” [0039].
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to modify the circumferential groove widths to increase moving away from the outer shoulder region (aka moving towards the inner shoulder region) as suggested by Onitsuka. One would have been motivated in order to improve drainage between the equator and the inner edge, increase rigidity between the equator and outer edge, and improve steering stability [0039].
Claim 55 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bode (US20180250989A1, of record) in view of Oba (US2017/0267031A1, of record), in view of Imakita (US2011/0088821A1, of record), and in view of Tomida (US2018/0111422, of record), as applied to claim 28 above, and further in view of either Colombo (WO2013042023A1, of record) or Horiguchi (US2018/0178589A1).
Regarding claim 55, the sipes of the first circumferential rib “502” are angled upwards compared to a tire axial direction, such that “upwards” in the Figures may be considered a first circumferential direction of the tire. Bode does not explicitly have the sipes of the second circumferential rib “501” inclined in an opposite direction towards the second circumferential direction, such that the specified extension direction has both sipes declined in the second direction while passing over the second annular poriton. However, Bode does not limit the angle or structure of the sipes in any specific way [see 0031]. An arrangement of groves/sipes that are counter-inclined in a center portion of the tire is well known within the art. For example, Colombo is tied to a tread for a tire (which shares assignee’s and inventors with the instant application) with a central zone “L1”, wherein axial adjacent blocks in the central region have sipes “40” which are counter-inclined relative to each other [see Fig. 1B]. The inclination of sipes formed in these adjacent blocks form “one or more sequences of inclined and counter-inclined sipes” [pg. 2 of machine translation].
One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the sipes of Bode to be counter-inclined in the two adjacent central ribs as suggested by Colombo. One would have been motivated in order to obtain an excellent performance in grip, traction, and breaking along straight sections and around bends [pg. 2 of machine translation]. As such for example, the sipes of the second circumferential rib would be inclined in an opposite direction, such that they would be pointed downwards in the figures in a second circumferential direction. And in such an arrangement, it is clearly evident that when moving over the second annular portion, all of the sipes would be declined towards the second circumferential direction which is pointing downwards.
Alternatively, Horiguchi teaches a pneumatic tire for passenger cars [0029] which has central land portions containing sipes [see Fig. 1]. The sipes “7” and “8” do not fully cross the land portion. In adjacent central land portions, the sipes are made to be inclined in different directions from each other [see 0080, Fig. 1]. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the sipes of bode to be counted-inclined in the two adjacent central ribs as suggested by Horiguchi. One would have been motivated so as to improve the frictional force of the tire and improve on-ice performance [0080]. As such for example, the sipes of the second circumferential rib would be inclined in an opposite direction, such that they would be pointed downwards in the figures in a second circumferential direction. And in such an arrangement, it is clearly evident that when moving over the second annular portion, all of the sipes would be declined towards the second circumferential direction which is pointing downwards.
An annotated Fig. 1 of Bode is included to facilitate discussion. The second annular portion is identified by the black rectangle. The sipes of the second rib are made to be counter inclined per Colombo/Horiguchi. Dotted arrows indicate the extension of the sipes in both central ribs when moving over the second annular portion. These sipes would clearly all be pointing downwards, which may be considered the second circumferential direction.
PNG
media_image2.png
307
529
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claims 28-35, 37, 39-42, 48-49, 52 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tomida (US2018/0111422A1, of record) in view of Oba (US2017/0267031A1, of record), in view of Maeda (US2018/0215205A1), and in view of Imakita (US2011/0088821A1, of record).
Regarding claims 28-29, Tomida teaches a tire (see Figs. 1-6, for example which disclose the tire. Tomidateaches a tire for passenger vehicles [0127, 0130]),
having a tread band (tread “10”) comprising a central region extending across an equatorial plane of the tire, an outer shoulder region on an outer side and an inner shoulder region on an inner side (as in Figs. 1-6, the right side of the tread pattern is considered the outside of the tire and the left side of the tread portion is considered the inside of the tire. It being noted that a tire is capable of being mounted two ways, and as a specific mounting direction is not specified, it would have been obvious to mount the tread of Tomida in either direction. The central region would be considered between “21a” and “21b”),
A first circumferential groove axially delimiting the outer shoulder region relative to the central region (the outside region is considered to the right of “21b”) and a second circumferential groove axially delimiting the inner shoulder region relative to the central region (and the inside region is considered to the left of “21a” in the figures).
Tomida does not explicitly disclose the widths of its central region or outer/inner shoulder regions compared to a width of the tread band. As such, it would have been obvious for one to look to other tires within the art for an ideal tread pattern with land portion widths. Oba, for example, is tied to a passenger car tire [0017] which has 4 land portions and 3 main circumferential grooves [Fig. 1]. Each of the center land portions have annular portions with no grooves present, and the shoulder land portions have portions where there are annular locations where the void-to-rubber ratio is substantially zero (i.e., where only thin sipes are present that do not have a major impact on water drainage). Oba is clearly of similar endeavor and design as Tomida and the instant application. Oba discloses that the width of the shoulder land portions are arranged from 0.25 to 0.35 times the tread ground contact width, and the width of each of the middle land portions is from 0.10 to 0.20 times TW [0029]. The shoulder land portions are made to be 1.6 to 2.4 times that of the center land portions [0028]. The tread pattern of Oba is shown to be symmetrical but it is explicitly not limited to this [0027].
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to modify the land regions of Tomida to be within the suggested widths of Oba. One would have been motivated in order to have higher rigidity in the shoulder land portions improving wear resistance [0028-0029, 0093]. In making such a modification, the central region may have center land portions that each have a width of as low as .10, such that the overall central region would reasonably be less than 35% of the TW when the center land portions are at the bottom portion of their range. And given that the shoulder land portions may have a range of values from .25 to .35 times TW, they would similarly have a width (either separately or together, as the claim is broad as to this aspect) that overlaps with a width greater than or equal to 30% of an effective width of the tread band. As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)).
Tomida does not explicitly have the outer shoulder region having a greater width than the inner shoulder region. However, it is well-known within the art of tires to arrange the shoulder regions as such. Maeda, for example, teaches a tread pattern with four land portions (see Fig. 1). The land portions may have a variety of grooves included which cover only a portion of the land portion [see Fig. 5]. The width of the outer shoulder land region “19” is made to have a larger width W7 than that of the inner shoulder land region “18” [0052, Fig. 1]. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the tread of Tomida to have the outer shoulder land region to have a larger width than the inner shoulder land region. One would have been motivated so as to improve dry grip performance and uneven wear resistance [0050-0052].
Tomida has transverse grooves “32” that are present in each of the shoulder land portions, as in Figs. 1-6. These grooves may have one end at a tread edge and extends towards a tire equator, and they may NOT intersect with the closest circumferential groove [see Fig. 2]. The grooves “32” clearly extend over 50% of the respective land portion in each of the given embodiments. Tomida does not explicitly define the width of